Araby Interpretations

Both Crane and Ratinov have differing views on the short story Araby. While Crane argues that at the end of the story the boy has learned nothing and is still just as vain as he was when he was a kid, Ratinov argues that the young boy at the end actually learns something, and that would be the hypocrisy of adult life and his own feelings. Crane bases her logic on the darkness in the story. The darkness represents something that the boy does not know or is ignorant to. At the end she describes the boys own ignorance to his feelings and states that he is still ignorant. Ratinov on the other hand believes that through circumstantial evidence in the story that the boy actually learns and reflects the hypocrisy in his own actions as well as the actions of others.

Cartoon

This cartoon seems to me like a clashing of two different ideals and one can venture to say it represents both the liberals and the republicans. It may also even represent the two sides to America. These would be the liberal sides and the conservative sides. Many aggressive words are on the side of the male farmer. Words such as burn, boycott, and murder, show a very proactive nature. This contrasts to the words on the female like save, and peace. America tends to act both pro actively and reactively in different cases. The pins on the side of the female tend to depict more liberal views. An example of this would be the pin "save the planet." The democrats and liberal Americans tend to care much more about what happens to earth and how resources are managed. Conversely the more conservative Americans and republicans care more about exploiting the land for profit such as drilling for oil on land and in the sea. America has both a pro war and anti war mentality. This is depicted by the woman's pin that says peace is patriotic, while at the same time the man's pin says that freedom isn't free indicating that we must fight in order to protect our freedom. The male tends to represent the more crude Americans as evident by the pin "Burn this Asshole." Also the pin "Boycott France" is another sign of our unwillingness to cooperate with countries. An even bigger example of this is on the pin with the U.N. crossed out. There were times in Bush's career where he actually went against the orders of the U.N. There are also the binaries between the pins. Words that are the exact opposite such as save and burn, and peace and massacre stand out on their respective sides in order to make more of an impact on the meaning of these words. There are so many different ways to interpret this cartoon, just like there are many ways in which the world interprets America. To some we are crude, illiterate, intolerant, violent bullies, who want nothing more than to coerce cooperation from powerless countries, and who will exploit and attack anything or anyone when it is to are advantage. To others we are the peacemakers and police of the world, the country of freedom and opportunity, intelligent and caring a country who is friend to all and will help those in need.

"The Method"

My initial reaction to "The method" was one of slight uninterest. I am used to doing these steps naturally and instinctively, and that is why I thought, at first, that this reading would not really help me. As I read and saw how in depth and how accurately these steps were being described and portrayed, I began to see the significance of this reading and also ways that I could improve my own method by taking advice from these steps, and applying it to my own analytical strategies.

These "methods" are very useful in analyzing movies, literature, essays, and even art. An example of this would be analyzing an argumentative essay, for example "Diversities False Solace". The first move suspending judgement is very key in order to analyze properly what Michaels is saying. In order to keep an objective point of view it is important to not let your own feelings, say on social equality, get in the way and make you judge Michaels and his views subjectively. In this way you lead yourself into step two by defining the specific parts of Michael's argument objectively, and from this you are able to connect their relationships with one another. Since Michael's paper tends to travel from subject to subject part three would not be applicable here as it would be difficult to find repetitions. Also since Michaels tells you at the end what he is saying step four of converting indirect statements into direct is pretty much unnecessary. Finally by reformulating questions and explanations you are able to look at the different ways in which Michaels portrays his ideas and what evidence he uses. In all this method is very useful in analyzing, as you accomplish it in a way that is both concise and objective.